Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Steel is one of the most popular raw materials used in construction. Its
applications range very broadly from structural, in cladding, roofing, floors and parti-
tions, fittings, electricity, HVAC to decorative. Among its advantages are easiness of
production and assembly. The lightness of the members also means that fewer founda-
tions are needed. Moreover, thermal, acoustic and comfort behavior, including air
quality, can be controlled efficiently. Construction times are also shorter. However,
when unprotected the fire behavior of steel can be bad. This paper presents the results
of research into the fire resistance of cold formed steel roof beams. Two fire resistance
tests were carried out on a 1/3.5 model of a cold formed steel roof beam. One test was
on an unprotected beam and another on a beam protected by intumescent paint. The
tests measured temperatures in the furnace and at several points of the beam, as well as
strains and displacements. As reference, a loading test was carried out on a beam of
the same type to assess the critical stability load at room temperature. The results of
the experimental tests are compared with those obtained in numerical simulations with
the finite element program ABAQUS.
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of cold formed steel profiles in building construction is a new solution that is still in devel-
opment, and so it will be a challenge for the next few years. Furthermore, studies in this area are
still fairly rare and mostly of a numerical nature. But some studies do tackle the most important
phenomena of these elements, i.e. local and distortional buckling, post-buckling resistance, flexural
buckling, torsional buckling, torsional-flexural buckling, shear strength, the lateral-torsional buck-
ling of members subject to bending and the strength of some types of screwed connections. Works
on these issues have been published by Narayanan & Mahendran (2003), Martnez & Xu (2006),
Dinis & Camotim (2006), Xuhong et al (2006). The structural behavior of cold formed steel is very
different from that of hot rolled steel elements, since most of the latter have class 1 or 2 cross-
sections, while the former have class 4 cross-sections, according to Eurocode 3, part 1.1 (2005). The
reason for this is the high slenderness of the cross-sections walls (high width/thickness ratio of the
wall) and the low torsional stiffness (much smaller than the bending stiffness). This is because, in
many of these cross-sections, the shear center does not coincide with the center of gravity and in the
great majority of elements the cross-sections are open, not branched. So more instability phenome-
na are seen in the cold formed steel elements than in the hot rolled ones, and there remains a great
deal of room for research. But there are fewer studies that relate to fire, and these only relate to nu-
merical studies on the behavior of columns in fire. For instance, the studies of Feng et al, published
in 2002 and 2003, present the results of numerical simulations on the behavior of hollow and C sec-
tions of cold formed steel columns in fire using the finite element program ABAQUS. These re-
searchers introduced some changes into the design methods for room temperature of the European,
164
British and American standards, in order to adapt them to the case of fire, but they had no experi-
mental results for comparison.
In this research a frame with 12 m span and 6 m tall was studied. The frames in the real structure
are 4.5 m apart and connected by transversal secondary beams 0.9 m apart.
The cross-sections of the columns are composed of 2R250x2.0 profiles, and the beams by
2R200x2.0 (Figure 2b), C200x2.0 (Figure 2a) and C250x2.0 profiles. These last are used to connect
the beams and columns and to connect the beams at mid-span. The profiles were connected by six
S-MD 03 Z carbon steel galvanized self penetrating screws, 6.3 mm in diameter.
Due to limitations of the fire resistance furnace, the tests were carried out in a 1:3.5 model. The fur-
nace has a transversal cross-section of 0.95 x 0.95 m is 4.5 m in length. The beams tested had a 3.5
m span supported on short 390 mm columns (Figure 3). Four TS-DD 03 Z 4.2 mm diameter screws
with 25 mm screw thread were used for the connection. The fire resistance tests were carried out in
the Laboratory of Testing Materials and Structures (LEME) of the Department of Civil Engineering
(DEC) of the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra (FCTUC).
Limitations of the profiles available on the construction market meant that the size could not be re-
duced exactly to 1:3.5. So cold formed steel sections with smaller dimensions were used, these be-
165
ing C90x1.5 and U93x1.5 profiles for the beams and C110x1.5 and U113x1.5 for the columns (Fig-
ure 3). The scale of the heights in the cross-sections was 1:2.2 and for the thicknesses it was 1:1.33.
As this type of warehouse is actually longer than 30 m, the frames adjacent to the ones in a fire will
confer lateral stiffness. This situation was replicated in the model by a lateral restraining structure
composed of 2R100x2.0 cold formed steel profiles filled with high strength mortar (compression
strength of 70MPa) (Figure 4). The transversal beams were 1.25 mm thick omega profiles supported
simply in the restraining structures.
166
2.2.2 Fire resistance tests
Two fire resistance tests were carried out, one on an unprotected cold formed steel beam and one on
a similar beam that was protected with intumescent paint. The section factor of the beam was about
340 m-1, so around 20 mm of intumescent paint was needed for 30 min of fire resistance. As this
was too thick a layer of paint, it was decided to use only 8 mm.
The tests measured temperature, displacements, and strains and assessed the fire resistance and crit-
ical temperature of the beams (Figure 5). The displacements were measured in sections S1, S2 and
S4, while the temperatures were measured in sections S1, S2 and S3 (Figure 4). Type K thermo-
couples, placed at different points of the cross-section were used to measure temperature (Figure 6).
In these tests the thermal action was programmed according to ISO 834 fire curve established in Eu-
rocode 1, part 1.2 (1995) (Figure 7).
The model was subjected to a serviceability load applied by gravity weights of steel suspended in
the transverse beams of the model (Figure 8). The applied load was determined for an accident sce-
nario, with a permanent load resulting from the weight of the roof tiles and secondary loads from
snow.
167
Figure 8. Application of gravitational load
3 RESULTS
168
Figure 9. Furnace temperatures in tests
Figure 10. Temperatures in section S1 for the first fire resistance test on an unprotected beam
Figure 11. Temperatures in section S3 for the first fire resistance test on an unprotected beam
In relation to the temperatures in section S1 it was observed that the fire resistance tests on beams
without protection had identical performance and temperature evolution, whereas there was a delay
in the evolution of temperatures in the beams protected with intumescent paint (Figure 12).
The numerical simulations with ABAQUS provided temperatures 20% higher than in reality.
Figure 14. Displacements measured in transducer S4-2 as a function of mean temperature in sections S1 and
S2
Figures 15 and 16 respectively show part of the unprotected and protected beam after the fire test. It
is observed that after fire exposure the thickness of the intumescent paint increased significantly to
create a semi-rigid foam on the structure that slowed the temperature rise in the steel. Figure 15 also
shows the buckling of the beam at the column connection profiles in the fire resistance test.
Figure 15. Beam without protection after test Figure 16. Beam with fire protection after test
170
4 CONCLUSIONS
The room temperature tests confirmed that the profiles that formed the connection between the
beams and columns were the weakest members of the structure because this was the site where rup-
ture occurred. To increase the carrying capacity of the roof beam, therefore, it is recommended that
these connections are strengthened, perhaps by increasing the number and / or diameter of the
screws, replacing the C profile for one R profile in the connections between the beams and columns,
or even increasing the steel grade of the screws and the steel profiles.
In relation to fire resistance tests it was observed that the behavior was not good. The high section
factor of the tested beam meant that the temperature within the beam was very close to that of the
furnace. Because of this and the steels high thermal conductivity, the fire resistance of the unpro-
tected beam was no longer than 30 minutes, unless protected with about 8 mm of intumescent paint.
However, a coat of paint of this thickness only allowed a fire resistance gain of about 14 minutes
which is not a significant increase in the fire resistance of the cold formed steel roof beam. A thick-
er layer of paint is therefore recommended, or the use another option such as composite cold formed
steel and concrete elements. An easier solution would be to adopt the same protection system as in
dwellings, with OSB and gypsum boards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge to the Portuguese cold formed steel profile maker PERFISA
S.A. (www.perfisa.net), the design office FUTURENG Lda. (www.futureng.com) and the Portu-
guese Foundation for Science and Technology FCT (www.fct.mctes.pt) for their support.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS/CAE standard users manual, Version 6.7-1.
Dinis, P. B. and Camotim, D. (2006). On the Use of Shell Finite Element Analysis to Assess the Local
Buckling and Post-Buckling Behaviour of Cold-Formed Steel Thin-Walled Members. III European Confe-
rence on Computational Mechanics, Springer, pp 689.
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures: part 1.2: General actions. Actions on structures exposed to fire. Eu-
ropean Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 1995.
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, EN 1993-1-1, Eu-
ropean Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures: part 1.2: General rules. Structural fire design. European Com-
mittee for Standardisation, Brussels, 2004.
Feng, M., Wang, Y. C. & Davies, J. M. (2002). Structural behaviour of cold-formed thin-walled short
steel channel columns at elevated temperatures. Part 2: Design calculations and numerical analysis. Thin-
Walled Structures, Vol 41, pp 571594.
Feng, M., Wang, Y. C. & Davies, J. M. (2003). A numerical imperfection sensitivity study of cold-
formed thin-walled tubular steel columns at uniform elevated temperatures. Thin-Walled Structures Vol 42,
pp 533555.
Lam, L. (2008). Behaviour of cold formed structures in fire. MSc Thesis, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Martnez, J. and Xu, L. (2006). Determination Of The Lateral Strength Of Shear Wall Panels With Cold-
Formed Steel Frames. Advances in Engineering Structures, Mechanics & Construction, Vol 140, Springer,
pp 401-409.
Narayanan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2003). Ultimate Capacity of Innovative Coldformed Steel Columns.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol 59 (4), pp 489-508.
Xuhong, Z., Yu, S., Tianhua, Z., Yongjian, L. and Jin, D. (2006). Study On Shear Resistance Of Cold-
Formed Steel Stud Walls In Residential Structure. Advances in Engineering Structures, Mechanics & Con-
struction, Vol 140, Springer, pp 423-435.
171